The Great Green Swindle

The EPA emulates Roman tactics to terrorize business. By Michelle Malkin

‘Crucify Them’: The Obama Way

The goal isn’t a cleaner environment. The goal is political incitement of fear:

It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. . . . So, that’s our general philosophy.

Climate scepticism threatens people, planet

The sky is falling, we all gonna die if we don’t buy Rajendra K. Pachauri’s windmills….

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) says Defense Sec. Panetta has more important things to do than “waste his time” promoting “Pres. Obama’s global warming fantasies.”

The Goracle panics:

Tim Blair:

“The carbon tax is killing us,”– in Australia today, climate change action is as popular as acne.

The Great Green Swindle:

The Muslim Brotherhood & George Soros

Read More »

Call it BS:

“Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.”— The terrible ‘death threats” that weren’t


Globull worming will make us mad

  • Here we go again:  More disgraceful alarmism from the commissioners climate mafia

2 thoughts on “The Great Green Swindle”

  1. I know that the Obama’s goons aren’t actually interested in historical facts, but the Mediterranean was not a Turkish territory during the Roman period. During the Roman period Turkey was known as Anatolia. The Turkish tribes were a late Medieval/Byzantine concept that originated from central Asia.

    Furthermore, The Roman’s did not have to conquer lots of little towns, around the Mediterranean because lots of little towns willingly joined up with Rome, like the Arab city of Nabataea (See Trajan). I am not saying they didn’t have conflicts in the Med. (See Thrace). Armendariz, is confusing his histories.

    Additionally, the Romans invited towns and cities to join with Rome before, “They’d go into a little” village and siege the hell out of it. Thus, Roman military maxim, “to distress the enemy more by famine that by the sword is the mark of consummate skill.” (See Masada). Rome saw it’s soldiers as a valuable assets, that were not to be squandered. Besides, the vast majority of cities jumped at the opportunity to have the chance to be a part of the Rome empire.

    I am sure I was taught that the use of crucifixion was a punishment solely for criminals, not for enemies captured in military campaigns, which would have been seen as valuable slaves. The Romans were all about humiliating their enemies. Anyone know exactly-Crucifixion as a criminal tool vs. political tool?

    Armendariz, confused his quote mixing Roman history, it annoys me. You can just tell he practiced that line (over and over) and there was probably lots of machismo back slapping going on in the office about how clever and cool they were to reference the Romans. Like Obama referencing the 30’s gangster movie the Untouchables.

    If you are going to make a public statement referring to historical events, good lord, have the foresight to verify your data before you speak.

Comments are closed.